Gender’s Role in Abolitionist Pedagogy: A fictionalized autoethnography through letters from prison Shelby A. Ferreira University of Rhode Island/Rhode Island College United States Problem • Prison-based education, the antidote to the US’s epidemic of mass incarceration, faces many challenges. Gender plays a role in those challenges, yet its role is not well researched. Thus, an exploration of gender’s role in abolitionist pedagogy is in order. Significance • US epidemic of mass incarceration • Within prisons exist experts with potential cure this epidemic • Prisons “integral to understanding the larger constellation” of societal ills (Vaught, 2012) • Recursive effect on greater society • Instead of dumping grounds • Vehicles for transformation Autobiographical Information • • • • • Commitment to most vulnerable populations Prison abolitionist Ex-prison educator University Affirmative Action administrator Educational researcher Terms of Interest • • • • Abolitionist pedagogy Autoethnography Gender Humanistic Background • US has world’s highest incarceration rates (Alexander, 2010; Glaze & Herberman, 2013) • Astronomical re-incarceration rates (Esperian, 2010) • Decreases associated with prison-based education (Davis, Bozick, Steele, Saunders, & Miles, 2013; Esperian, 2010) • Cultural transmission model dominates (Burton-Rose & Wright, 1998; Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972; Williford, 1994) Background • Further decrease associated with prison-based humanistic education (PBHE) (Davis, et al., 2013; Esperian, 2010; Frank, Omstead, & Pigg, 2012; Nally, Lockwood, Knutson & Ho, 2012; Palmer, 2012; Rafay, 2012; Steurer, Linton, Nally & Lockwood, 2010; US. Department of Education, 2012; Vaught, 2012; Ward, 2009; Warner, 2007) • PBHE suggests abolitionist potential (Larson, 2011; Scott 1998) • Institutional challenges to abolitionist pedagogy (Ferreira, 2013; Kilgore, 2011) • Role of gender in challenges to abolitionist pedagogy(Ferreira, 2013) My Experience • Gender-relevant, context-specific, critical, democratic pedagogy within a women’s medium-security prison – Sexual abuse – Patriarchy – Psychiatric drugs • Context-specific, critical, democratic pedagogy within a men’s maximum-security prison – Hyper-masculinity – Conformity to inherited penal system • Termination – Hyper-sexualization • All the Way Home – Criminalization Purpose • In-depth exploration of gender’s role in the perception, implementation, and effects of abolitionist pedagogy • Amplify the voices of incarcerated experts Theoretical Framework • Social reconstruction ideology (Schiro, 2012) – Society unhealthy – Education as means to envision a new one • Prison abolition ideology (Davis, 2003) – Just & equitable society doesn’t need prison – Restorative justice • Critical feminist theory (Butler, 1990; Rhode, 1989) – – – – Gender inequity Gender roles Sexualization Hetero-normativity Review of the Literature • Prison-based education (Burton-Rose & Wright, 1998; Davis, Bozick, Steele, Saunders, & Miles, 2013 ; Esperian, 2010; Jones & d’Errico, 1994; Kilgore, 2011; Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972; Williford, 1994) • Prison-based humanistic education [PBHE] (Bordt & Carceral, 2012; Davis, et al., 2013; Esperian, 2010; Frank, Omstead, & Pigg, 2012; Halperin, Kessler, & Braunschweiger, 2012; Hartnett, 2011; Kilgore, 2011; Larson, 2011; Lee, 2010; Lockard & Rankins-Robertson, 2011; Nally, Lockwood, Knutson & Ho, 2012; McCarty, 2006; Olinger, et.al, 2012; Palmer, 2012; Rafay, 2012; Shieh, 2010; Steurer, Linton, Nally & Lockwood, 2010; US. Department of Education, 2012; Ward, 2009; Warner, 2007 Williford, 1994) • Abolitionist pedagogy (Hartnett, 2011; Kilgore, 2011; Larson, 2011; Palmer, 2012; Wright, 2004) • Gender & institutions (Brown, 2005; Connell, 1996; Davis, 2003; Lempert, Bergeron, & Linker, 2005; Martin, 1994; Rowe, 2004) Research Question • Gap in literature: Role of gender in abolitionist pedagogy • What role does gender play in the perception, implementation, and effects of abolitionist pedagogy? Methodology • Pragmatic (Biesta & Burbules, 2003) – Find means to achieve educational ends – My expertise ) • Qualitative (Maxwell, 2005; Patton, 2002) – Exploratory • Autoethnographic – Culture – Personal expertise (Chang, 2008) Data Sources • Observational/Self-Reflective (Chang, 2008) – – – – Field journal Personal journal Personal art/creative projects Analytic memos • External – Texts generated from incarcerated students – Interviews & field notes from All the Way Home – Letters/art/other incidental documents from incarcerated loved ones/acquaintances Data Analysis and Transformation Procedure (Chang, 2008) Ethical Considerations • Confidentiality • Responsibility to students/participants Presentation of Findings • Fictionalized accounts (Greene, 1988; Sconiers, 2000) – De-identifying data, confidentiality – Question values • “Letters from prison” – Counternarrative (Bamburg & Andrews, 2004; Baszile, 2005) – Form (Barone, 2001; Greene, 1998) Preliminary Findings/Implications • Findings: – Gendered culture/institution as barrier to abolitionist pedagogy – Incarcerated people have solutions • Implications: – Communities of practice, incarcerated people, prison personnel, educators Suggestions for Future Research • Roles of race/ethnicity, economics, etc. in abolitionist pedagogy? • How might we use our knowledge of the role of gender in prison-based education in order to better align with an abolitionist vision? References (Available upon request) Thank you! • Questions/feedback?